So I was gonna post this in the appropriate thread at the main board before I found it crashed and burned....

The Paper wrote:

West Virginia's energy independence could bank on the development of five coal-to-liquid plants, which Gov. Joe Manchin hopes the state can accommodate by 2030. Such an initiative serves as the cornerstone of the governor's new state energy report designed to free West Virginia from reliance on foreign oil imports. The governor is likely to tout the plan during his annual State of the State speech, which will be Wednesday evening at the state Capitol. The five plants would ideally produce 20,000 barrels of liquid coal each per day. In the process, state coal production would increase by 15 percent, according to the report. Developers have already been scouring sites in West Virginia for these fuel plants. Colorado-based Rentech Inc. had pledged to build a $1 billion coal-to-liquid plant in Mingo County by 2012. "Realizing as a nation how we're facing real energy security challenges, the feeling is that coal is a way to resolve those issues," said Jeff Herholdt, director of the state Division of Energy. Herholdt said 60 percent of the state's oil products come from imported sources, accounting for 1.4 billion gallons of petroleum product yearly. The development of five coal-to-liquid plants would make up for that amount if they collectively produce 100,000 barrels a day. The state would likely replace oil with liquid fuel derived from coal, the report reads. To liquefy coal, it must be fired up to 1,000 degrees and mixed with water. The gas created from that turns into fuel that can be used in cars and jets. The coal-to-liquid process, however, can be quite costly and intensive. The average price of building a plant is estimated at $4 billion, according to a Washington Post article. The state's report says only half of that, $2 billion, is needed to construct a 20,000-barrel-a-day coal-to-liquid plant. Each plant would require roughly 4 million tons of coal a year. On the national scale, experts believe the process would require vast amounts of water and 120 million tons of coal each year just to wean the United States off of 1 million barrel of crude oil a day. The governor's report, however, states, "While our conventional oil and gas reserves could be materially depleted in decades, our nation's coal reserves are plentiful." Another factor in reaching the governor's goal depends on the private sector's willingness to start up a project in the state. Though the state is encouraging development of coal-to-liquid plants, private companies would be largely responsible for funding such projects. "It's a decision that industry would have to make in making that investment and locating here," Herholdt said. In December 2006, Rentech Inc. and the Mingo County Redevelopment Authority announced a joint development agreement to build a plant that would employ up to 400 full-time workers. The plant would convert synthesis gas, a combination of hydrogen and carbon monoxide produced from coal, into 3 million to 9 million barrels of clean-burning transportation fuel annually. Construction is expected to take three years. Rentech and the redevelopment authority are cooperating in developing, financing and owning the plant. Herholdt noted that Vancouver, Wash.-based Baard Energy is another company that could possibly build in West Virginia. Baard Energy has already announced plans for a $5 billion coal-to-liquids plant in Wellsville, Ohio, near Hancock County. That plant would burn 70 percent coal and 30 percent biomass. The company has stated it would capture and sequester 85 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions underground. In addition to the vast amounts of water and coal needed for a successful coal-to-liquid plant, a site would also need to be set on flat land, Herholdt said. There are also environmental concerns to consider, he said. "The environmental side of the issue has caused the slowing down of these technologies," Herholdt said. Citing studies from groups such as the Idaho National Laboratory, Herholdt said that rendering coal-to-liquid fuel has about the same environmental impact as producing standard petroleum. Several critics of this technology remain concerned. They contend that liquid coal fuels generate twice the carbon dioxide of petroleum fuels. Environmentalists have said Manchin's energy plan would do little to reduce the release of greenhouse gases or to discourage mountaintop removal mining methods. Last year, coal production in West Virginia was 148 million tons. A 15 percent increase would bring that number to around 170 million tons. According to the state report, West Virginia ranks 9th per capita in total energy consumption. Gas consumption is 2.3 million gallons per day; distillate fuel is 1.6 million gallons; liquefied petroleum gas is only 0.2 and jet fuel is .03.

I love how the only way people seem to be able to cut our reliance on foreign oil is to use more domestic oil and coal.

Let's not open more nuclear plants and move to electric power for everything....that wouldn't be nearly as profitable, and it would really muss up the infrastructure of money making...

Well, when you're a poor state trying desperately to hang on to the industry that helped put you in the shitter in the first place, you'll convince yourself of damn near anything to justify it.

_________________

I don't think it's a matter of convincing one's self, as much as being just convincing/deceptive enough to get others to roll over and take it like a bitch.

Consider the location.



As for nuclear power....
Excellent idea, and it's not like there's a shortage of people to run the shit. How many nuclear engineers does the Navy have? Shit, they run all their ships on nuclear plants. Grab up some Navy folks who've retired or finished out their contracts, and there ya go...instant workforce.
But no...people have been convinced that it's dirty and that it'll mutate you and that a melt-down is inevitable.

_________________

Zoe wrote:

Consider the location. As for nuclear power.... Excellent idea, and it's not like there's a shortage of people to run the shit. How many nuclear engineers does the Navy have? Shit, they run all their ships on nuclear plants. Grab up some Navy folks who've retired or finished out their contracts, and there ya go...instant workforce. But no...people have been convinced that it's dirty and that it'll mutate you and that a melt-down is inevitable.

Precisely. People have been convinced/decieved into thinking (or more appropriately, not thinking) that nuclear is not safe, and coal can be our savior...

Between nuclear, solar, geothermal, and wind, we have plenty of energy available to run our world....but there's no money in cheap and free shit

Anyone who thinks coal can save us hasn't been to Appalachia and seen what it does. And I'm not even talking about the pollution from the plants.

Quote:

Between nuclear, solar, geothermal, and wind, we have plenty of energy available to run our world....but there's no money in cheap and free shit

Aye, there's the rub.

_________________

I am not D-503 wrote:

Between nuclear, solar, geothermal, and wind, we have plenty of energy available to run our world...

Wave energy! http://www.finavera.com/en/wavetech/aquabuoymovie

Zoe wrote:

Anyone who thinks coal can save us hasn't been to Appalachia and seen what it does. And I'm not even talking about the pollution from the plants. Quote: Between nuclear, solar, geothermal, and wind, we have plenty of energy available to run our world....but there's no money in cheap and free shit Aye, there's the rub.

Coal is very dangerous...

I lost a cousin in a methane explosion in the Westray Mine Disaster in 1992 in Stellarton, Nova Scotia.. that explosion killed 26 people was most likely caused by a spark from machenery..

_________________

Some Wiki shit (since it's easy to find and a quick read):
Buffalo Creek Flood
Pay particular attention to the "economics" section of this one: Mountain top removal
Environmental impact of coal mining

_________________

doesn't west virginia pretty much live on the coal industry?

yea, good luck getting someone elected in that state who endorses something other than coal

_________________

_aegisknight wrote:

doesn't west virginia pretty much live on the coal industry?

The argument could easily be made that we're dying on it. Most of the money goes out of state, coal companies don't pay near the tax they should, and they can pretty much get away with murder. If coal had been taxed even half a cent a ton in the early 1900s, we'd be one of the richest states in the nation, still living off that money. If you could see the poverty and squallor in most of the areas where mining is big, you'd be shocked.

You'd be surprized at the number of residents who oppose the coal industry. They know how dirty it is, in every sense of the word. Read up on Don Blankenship. President of Massey Energy. Now there's a dirty motherfucker if there ever was one.

There is so much more to this place than coal, but since Massey and the other coal companies have most of the politicians in their pockets, nothing gets done.
There are some beautiful places here. Seneca Rocks, the New River Gorge (which a developer has just bought a bunch of land on and is going to build a frikkin' houseing development... ), Blackwater Falls, Monogahela National Forest, great state parks and forests, skiing, white water, all kinds of outdoorsy shit. If it weren't for the shitty economy, this place really would be great. Hell, if someone put their mind to it they could turn the eastern mountains into what they've done with the Smokies in Tennessee.
There's been more interest in that stuff in recent years, but still no major development or national attention. This is in part I'm sure because when anyone hears "West Virginia" all they can think of is dirty coal and ignorant hillbillies, and who wants to visit that? Plus, the state government is totally inept when it comes to just about anygoddamnthing.

_________________

Damn all the rivers and make hydro-electric plants, as a bonus you'll get to drown all the cracker poor white trash.

We have quite a few dams. I don't think a one of them as a hydroelectric plant.

And we're not all "cracker poor white trash."

_________________

I know, but I figured the rich White cracker trash had enough money to stop the damms.